text:
Could an airliner abort a landing after using the brakes system while landing?
Everyone knows that doing a go-around is a normal procedure, although the go-around happens usually before applying the brakes system (spoilers, ground/air brakes, and/or thrust reversers), but, could you perform an aborted landing after using any brakes system?
Of course, this is not for a normal flight/landing, and there must be some conditions, like enough runway to gain speed again, and of course you should be not so low from Vr speed.
Let's see why someone could do an aborted landing after braking: There were at least two cases (Atlantic Airways Flight 670 and TAM Flight 3054) where the braking system just "fails" (actually both were a pilot's error, but let's say that was just a mechanical error).
Of course you will only notice that the braking system is failing when you activate it, and maybe is not like they are not working at all, but just working poorly, so you could see that the speed is slowing down, but also you can see that is not normal and maybe you just need to takeoff again and do another approach, or even going to another airport for a longer runway so you could safety brake with your malfunctional braking system.
After that explanation, I have two questions:

Can you technically perform an aborted landing after braking? I mean, could the automated braking system or the flaps settings interfere?
Would be this procedure be in any airline/airplane manual in case of a malfunctional braking system while landing? (i.e., an official procedure for this type of case)

Welcome to Av.SE!

TOGA is an engine/thrust setting or switch ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeoff/Go-around_switch ) an aircraft cannot perform one.

Whether an airplane can take off again after landing is dependent on runway length, given enough runway an airplane could come to a complete stop and take off again.

@Federico my "TOGA" is actually just a term that I invented for this question. I know that the real "TOGA" is a button/switch often located behind or below the throttle handhold. I will edit my question to make it clear for new visitors anyway.

@JuanP.Zuniga aviation is an established industry. re-using terms for made-up meanings brings confusion and does not help the conversation

Disclaimer: I'm not an airline pilot so don't just take my word and apply it in a real world environment
From my understanding:
TOGA means takeoff/go around and is usually a thrust setting of the engine. It can also be the vertical or lateral mode of an autopilot/flight director. I haven't seen anyone referring TOGA as a situation of flight though. "I've flown a TOGA" is a thing that I have never heard.
Touch-and-Go: Performing a landing and aborting it after you have touched down. Usually this is planned ahead of time and ATC issues a "cleared touch and go" or "cleared for the option" instead of "cleared to land". Usually ATC doesn't expect a message from you during the go-around phase as far as I know.
Go-Around: Aborting a landing in general. My understanding of a go-around is aborting an approach before touching down. ATC usually expects a "going around" message from you.
Aborted landing: Similar to go around but my understanding would be that it takes place after you have touched down. The reasons may be a bounced landing, a late touch down with too little runway remaining or things of that nature. They are unplanned in comparison to a planned touch-and-go. ATC probably expects a "going around" from you.
Stop and go: Performing a full stop landing and taking off right after. Should be requested from ATC and depending on traffic it may not be possible. It gives you time to go through all checklists before taking off again and does not require a long taxi back. Usually this is only done by general aviation aircraft when the runway is long enough.

Now to the "Can You Do It?" question:
With a long enough runway you can easily perform a full stop landing followed by a normal takeoff ("stop and go") or a "touch and go". The worst case is an engine failure at V1 during the 'go'-phase. You'd have to guarantee that the aircraft will be able to stop on the remaining runway or that you are above minimum control speed in order to stay on the runway and climb out with one engine inoperative. This is probably the reason why it's usually not considered as a safe option to go around after you have already slowed down significantly.
There are many other factors that have to be taken into account though:

Operating manual may prohibit it.
Company rules and guidelines may prohibit this even if may be physically possible and safe to do so.

Actions that will have to be performed during the touch and go:

Ground spoilers should retract as you move thrust levers forward. You have to verify that this happens.
Autobrakes will disable almost instantly once you move the thrust levers forward. You have to monitor that.
The feet of the other pilot in the flight deck have to be off the brake pedals. In an emergency situation it could happen that the rules of "pilot flying" and PNF are not respected by the other crew member and that they think the autobrake may have failed and they try to stop the plane. Communication needs to be clear.
Pitch trim has to be reset for takeoff. You have to do that manually in most aircraft
Engines have to be stabilized for a brief moment before adding full thrust if you are slower than minimum control speed.
Time between commanding full thrust and actual engine thrust can be 5 seconds or longer.
If you applied reverse thrust and switch directly to forward thrust you will need to make sure that both reversers are stored and properly latched closed before you can apply lots of forward thrust. The last thing you want is both engines on max thrust with one reverser still open.
Brake temperature. If you have already decelerated significantly then your brakes will be quite hot but the indicated temperature usually lags behind. Max indicated temperature is usually reached several minutes after landing... So you don't actually know how hot your brakes are until minutes later. Before taking off again you should verify that brake temperature is not too high and within limits for a potential rejected takeoff. If you decelerated only a little bit and noticed that braking action is poor then there is no physical reason as to why the brakes should be too hot.
Flaps will need to be raised from full landing configuration to go around position. It may take several seconds before the flaps reach that position. During this period you have a lot more drag which reduces the acceleration.

During all this time you have you're just wasting runway length. If you're going 130 kts for just 5 seconds this means you waste roughly 330 meters or 1100 feet before you start accelerating again.

Due to the retraction of the flaps you reduce drag but you also lose lift. I see no physical problem doing that while you are on the ground rolling but if you are already airborne again you may need to wait for a good positive rate and good terrain clearance before you can attempt that.
Climb performance with flaps extended may be significantly worse - so terrain and obstacle clearance have to be checked.

Usually there won't be time to check the proper pitch trim setting, check the proper V1, VR and V2 speeds during such an event. And if you have enough runway left to do all that you may as well stay on the brakes and add full reverse thrust to stop.

Thanks a lot jan. I'm not even a real pilot (although I want to learn to fly at least in general aviation) but I can tell that this is so logical, even me who love logical thoughts, I wouldn't think about those steps to follow just to take off again just right after landing and braking. Of course I knew that every second that you use, you are taking a lot of vital meters/feets from the runway, but I didn't know that it could be a lot of time for take off again.

ATC does expect an "Acme 1234 going around" call so they can move other traffic where it needs to go, but only once it's safe. It's usually pretty clear what's going on, and even a decent tower will be working out who needs to move where before the call is made, but it still should happen. "Going around" is a declaration, not a permission request. ATC has no say in the matter as safety is entirely the cockpit crew's responsibility. Small planes often call it out after they've already left the ground, and they have much less to do. Airline crews have a much longer list of steps to complete.

Immediately after touchdown, the autobrakes will start to function, and may start applying the brakes depending on the aircraft's deceleration and the commanded deceleration.  If the pilot hasn't yet started to deploy the thrust reversers, a go-around is still possible at this point.  Advancing the throttles will disengage the autobrakes, and it's a normal balked landing from that point.
Also, advancing the throttles will stow the speedbrakes as well -- this is the way the system is designed, for exactly this sort of a condition.
As discussed elsewhere, once the thrust reversers are deployed, you are committed to stopping; a go-around is no longer safe to attempt after that.
If the brakes malfunctioned in a manner that the crew only became aware of after landing, chances are that they'd only become aware of it well after the thrust reversers were deployed, so the go-around isn't going to happen in response to that.  Thankfully, the wheel brakes on modern airliners are extremely reliable, and I can't think of any example of this sort of a failure.  If it did happen, you'd stay in max reverse as long as possible, use the EMAS if the runway has it, and use any available braking that you have (i.e. if the brakes on one wheel had failed but the others hadn't).  But it's not something that tends to happen on modern jets.

I didn't know that there was a significally delay when you rectract the Reversers or even failing to. I tried searching this question before asking it here but I didn't get that type of answer in my search. Thanks for sharing!

I'm not a pilot, but my understanding is thrust reversers are most effective at high speeds (right after touchdown) so if the brakes weren't working properly without a warning, the jet would still decelerate quite a bit; say, from ~150 knots or whatever touchdown was to like 90 knots before the reversers began losing effectiveness and the poor braking action became more noticeable. Again, not a pilot.

@CodeShane  Your understanding is exactly correct. In the case of a short runway where I do apply the wheel brakes firmly enough right after touchdown that I'd expect to feel significant added deceleration (i.e. so I'd have an early cue that they aren't working), that's the case where I want the reverse thrust promptly as well, so again, the TR's are deployed by the time I'd know of a brake problem - even if it were to be at the higher speed. But normally, wheel braking isn't perceptible until ~ 80-100 knots, for exactly the reasons you explained.


text:
How can I land a PA-44 (Seminole)?
I’m trying to get my ME endorsement now, and I find I can’t land very well. My instructor told me to forget everything I know about the Cessna, and that this aircraft should be landed with power. He told me to do a really low approach (compared to the Cessna) and keep the power on until about 7-10 ft off the runway, gently round out, level off (about four fingers under the horizon) and start decreasing power, wait for the aircraft to sink, then pull the column to three fingers under the horizon, power to idle, and land.
But I’m really confused:

Where is my aim point? I always do it depending on my feeling, so sometimes it’s unstable. Maybe use the bottom of the compass to match the runway number?
What’s the rate to reduce the power? My instructor told me the best condition was you touch down at the same time your power had been idle. But I don’t know when the aircraft will touchdown, so I always reduce the power to idle before the aircraft starts sinking. Is that OK?
When I was doing it, I didn’t know why the control column was really hard to pull during flare, and I had trimmed the aircraft on final. Maybe use more trim on a short final?

You did not mention airspeed once.  That is key in any aircraft.  You need to round with enough speed to continue flying the aircraft down to landing.  Power on landings should be easier, and the Seminole is a bit heavier than a Cessna 172.  It would help to work with a very long runway, and round a tad fast just to work on your flare/touchdown. Talk this over with your instructor.

Thanks for answering,my threshold speed is about 75-80kts.I’m just afraid that if I bring back my power too slowly,the aircraft won’t sink during flare.

Landing any airplane is a hand/coordination skill.  I doubt you will find any magic words of advice on the internet that will make you a better pilot.  You should know what to do by now, you probably just need more practice, or a new instructor.

@Robert DiGiovanni
So does it mean power is not that important during flare?All I need is just bring the power back gently(if it has been idled quickly,doesn’t matter) ,just focus on my flare?

Practicing a flare out of ground effect & with no visual references regarding sink?  Um, okay...   But seriously, go to your CFI with this, not an internet forum. Not that everybody here isn't a CFII, ATP, and Shuttle pilot with two spacewalks & a moon landing, but...

I have some time in a Seminole.  The issue with twins that causes most of the difficulty is the speed brake effect of two propellers when you pull the power off and they go to full fine pitch.  It's like you deployed a couple of drogue chutes, and makes your speed decay very rapidly and you will find yourself sinking quickly and needing large pitch inputs to try to arrest the sink, and with the Seminole's pitch behaviour this can be challenging to master.
The Seminole is not helped by having fairly high stabilator forces in pitch in the flare, and the T tail causes changes in stabilator effectiveness and sensitivity as the surface comes down into the wing's downwash during the pitch up.
You should be trimmed for hands off flight at your final approach speed (you trim to a speed - think of the trim wheel as your hands-off cruise control speed select dial) 90kts if near GW, 80kts when light.  Some pilots feed in a little bit of extra NU trim just before the flare to reduce the pitch effort, but this puts your trim speed even slower, and if you go around, you will be frantically spinning it ND and pushing on the column as you accelerate to blue line - more so than if you were trimmed at Vref.
Your aim point is 3-500 feet down the runway (in big aircraft it's 1000 ft).  The numbers will do fine as a reference. Your target condition is, as you are passing down below 300 ft or so, you should be trimmed with power set so you can let go of the controls and the plane will hold speed and track the glide slope without any input from you.  Then it's little nudges and small power changes to correct things.  The key is trim to hands off on-speed and on-slope so that the airplane works with you, not against you. For your questions:

Don't rely too much on crutches like standard clearances from objects in the cockpit.  Your target is to have the touchdown zone simply staying in the same spot in the windshield as you close in on it, wherever that spot is.  The "two fingers this, three fingers that" varies with loading so can't be used except as a very general reference for starting out.
In a twin like that you carry power through the round out and the start of the flare and you settle into ground effect. For starters, just leave approach power on until you are at about 5 feet then pull it to idle as you are feeling for the runway.  With experience you can work on feathering the power off from a bit higher up, getting to idle just before touchdown, but it's too much to think about early on.  When you want to make small or slow power reductions, it's easier to manage it by walking the levers in little alternating increments by rotating your hand.
The hard pull for the flare is characteristic of the Seminole and is just something you have to get used to.  As I said, you can trim to a slower speed during the round out to reduce how hard you have to pull, but if you do a go around you find yourself trimmed for, say, 65kt and as it wants to accelerate you will be pushing pretty hard on the wheel to keep the nose down to accelerate to blue line while frantically reaching for trim wheel.  Then if an engine quits and you are distracted doing the drill without retrimming, while holding a hard forward push, you will inevitably let it relax, and things go south.

The biggest factor that will help with your flying is mastering the use of trim for managing speed (it gets more complicated later because you pitch to speed when flying visually, but later when doing instrument approaches you pitch to slope because you have to maintain a precise path on a little needle - worry about that later).  You never want to be holding continuous pitch pressures for any more than short transient conditions.  You don't crank the trim wheel to make pitch changes (although you can) you make pitch changes and follow up with trim. This gets more and more important as the planes get heavier and the control forces go up.
Large turboprops are flown with power right up to the touchdown.  Jets come off the power a bit sooner, and jets that are clean in landing config (generally those without slats) come off the power quite early - in the CRJ200, you go to idle at 50ft.

That's really helpful,lots work to do.Thanks a lot!

This is really well described, and much of it applies to many low-wing, high wing loading airplanes with variable pitch props.

I’m assuming that you did your commercial work in a TAA C172 with little or no time in Piper airplanes prior to beginning multi engine training in a PA-44, correct?  That might explain why flying the Seminole seems so different.
Most Piper singles and twins like a little bit of manhandling on final and during the roundout; not a whole lot finesse here.  The PA-44, which is essentially a twin engined Cherokee Arrow, is going to probably fly a lot like its single engine cousin does.  They are really power dependent and, once you pull the throttles to idle, they’re going to drop like a brick.  John K points out some of the reason it the drag from the two essentially windmilling props, but again this is just a Piper retract thing.
As to aimpoint, you need to revisit your goals in the roundout: arrest your descent and place the airplane in the correct attitude for landing.  Arrive at the roundout at the correct approach speed specified in the POH or no lower that 1.3*Vso to minimize float.  Your instructor’s landing techniques are fine, though I would not say “throw out everything you learned about landings from a Cessna”; the techniques still apply but every airplane out there has its own specific performance quirks.
A more critical metric here is touchdown point and that’s dependent on how long the airplane will float in the flare.  Try this:  on your next pass in the PA-44, when on final, trimmed up and power set for Vref and on glidepath, aim for the first stripe on the runway to enter the flare over.  Keep tabs on how many runway stripes the airplane floats over during the flare and note which stripe the airplane finally touches down on.  Since each stripe is 120ft long with an 80ft gap between them, you can quickly determine the distance of the float and pick your aimpoint in front of it accordingly.
Remember, don’t reference your aimpoint based upon features in the cockpit, reference it based upon whether its moving in your field of view on final.  If you're heading for the aimpoint it should be fixed in your field of view and only increasing in size.
Typically you will smoothly reduce power i.e. pull throttles back to idle over ~1-2 seconds just as you enter the round-out.  This is a pretty good technique in Pipers and yields a smoother touchdown.  Just be ready to pull back on the yoke as you simultaneously reduce power in the flare as the nose will quickly drop otherwise.  Unless you’re flying a seaplane, don’t keep power in during the flare.  It only increases the float and eats up more runway needlessly.

Read (and upvote) John K's answer. Some great experience there.
Some really important points:

Match approach speed with weight. Approaching too slow is "bad".
Use power to make plane "your favorite glider", with a comfortable, manageable glide slope.

Notice John's point about "clean jets" take out power sooner.  Keep power in if you are very "draggy". This is what your instructor wants, a nice flat approach, and easy round out.  If you are trimmed for speed and power on final, you should just be flaring after you round because you do not have enough power for level flight.
This is where thrust vs drag and gliding experience hits home.  This is what you practice at altitude.  If you find yourself floating down the runway at your power setting, go back up and find your min power for level flight (using the horizon as a reference) at the flare pitch you land at.  Your power setting at landing will be less than this, practice will refine your technique, but it is much worse to be too slow than too fast when you round.
So don't worry about landing a little long if your runway allows for it, at first.  It is ok to control your touchdown by easing out power as long as your nose is high enough to protect your nosegear.  Good luck!

Flare at a relevant high level, then idle power slowly…
Flare at a lower height, then idle the power quickly…
I found it has really strong ground effect, it could drift a long distance if you keep power during flare. And we got G1000 system here, so sometimes i am in a new airport, i am gonna go to see the attitude to make sure that my real attitude is not nose wheel down, it is about +2.5~+. (Attitude indicator plays an important role here in Chinese pilot training…)

As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Is there an official FAA source for time zone of an airport?
Looking at this answer, from TypeIA, to the question How to get timezone from airport code (IATA/FAA) .
This person is recommending the NASR database, which is good because it's official FAA stuff, but like other users I'm not able to find any information about time zone for an airport in NASR.
Is this information available via NASR or from any other official FAA source?
I do know that I can derive the information from lat/long etc., but what I'm looking for is the official FAA time zone designation for each airport, if such a thing exists.
EDIT: Sorry, to be clear, I'm looking for a digital version of this data suitable for use in a database or app.

You want a database or look-one-at-a-time is okay for you?

For one-off lookup, the FAA Chart Supplement has the UTC offset on the first line of the airport entry. It should be a simple matter to download the whole database and use something like AWK or sed to grab the data. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/dafd/

Its a long shot, but you can maybe try to submit a question to the FAAs Aeronautical Data Inquiry website asking if they have an authoritative digital source for timezone information: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/Aero_Data/Aero_Data_Inquiries/

@RyanBurnette thanks for your response, sorry but I'm pretty much a noob at StackExchange, how do I send you a message?!  :-)

Each airports timezone is listed in the Airport/Facility Directory. I think the FAA is starting to call these "Chart Supplements" now though. You can search for specific airports here but it looks like the results are in .pdf format. The value you want is circled in red here:

EDIT: As far as digital sources, explicit time zone information seems missing from the NASR airport (APT) data here. The next best thing is Latitude/Longitude it seems.

I have at least a partial solution for you. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I have done some work towards this goal in the past. What I did based on your request was to extract some of that code to build an API of airports which includes latitude, longitude, UTC offset and timezone values.
Here are examples on the endpoints.
For all the data in the whole API you can send an HTTP GET request to https://airports-api.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/. You'll get a JSON response containing all the airports as an array of objects. It's a huge response.
For more pinpoint information the following two RESTful patterns can be utilized for ICAO or IATA airport codes respectively.
https://airports-api.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/icao/katl.json
https://airports-api.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/iata/atl.json

In either case you'll get a JSON response for just that airport. It should look like this.
{
   "id":3682,
   "city":"Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta Intl",
   "state":"Atlanta",
   "country":"United States",
   "iata":"ATL",
   "icao":"KATL",
   "latitude":33.636719,
   "longitude":-84.428067,
   "elevation":1026,
   "utc_offset":-5,
   "_class":"A",
   "timezone":"America/New_York"
}

Now I know you're working in PHP, but there are surely libraries in PHP that will allow you to make requests to the API and parse the JSON into a PHP array.
Also, a disclaimer and a request. My data is incomplete. Currently this project is on Github in the form of a Middleman site that reads the source CSV and builds a static API. I would love to have collaborators help me expand and improve the source data. I also have code I can extract from other projects that determines the UTC offset and timezone values if we at least know the latitude and longitude. It requires making requests to the Google Maps Timezone API which would get expensive if this were done on demand, so I'd prefer to keep digesting the data and rebuilding the API as a static site. Get involved at Github if you want to help.
Update
I found another source of data that, once integrated into my API will drastically improve the number of available airports. Working on that soon.

You could avoid Google API by using the free timezone data from http://efele.net/maps/tz/world/. Querying that wouldn't be hard with some spatial database—I have only used SpatiaLite, but the API is basically the same in anything (PostGIS is available for PostgreSQL and should be complete; MySQL has some support built-in, but I don't know whether it is good enough already—it used not to be).

I'm using a couple dependencies that are already integrated with Google APIs. So far it's the most efficient way to go. I'm definitely checking out the suggestion though, thanks.

http://airports.api.faralmanac.com doesnt exist anymore

@Krishna Fixed the URL's

airports-api.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com doesn't exist anymore

It's still up. There is just isn't anything at the root url .https://airports-api.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/icao/katl.json

I was curious how hard this would be to do, so I started experimenting. I’m using macOS Sierra, but the basic steps would be the same on other platforms.
The first thing would be to download the .pdf files. There are 9 of them so you need to do these steps 9 times. Automator makes it easy to convert the PDF files to text. Lots of the text is mangled, but the line you care about is intact. Open Automator and select Workflow from the dropdown window. Drop one of the files into the Automator window. I chose CS_SW_20170105.pdf. In the actions tab, choose PDFs and select Extract PDF Text. Use the icon to run the action. It is surprisingly fast.
Now you have a text file that you can manipulate using your favorite text manipulation tools. I use BBEdit. First, I removed all the line breaks, then used the Process Lines Containing command to copy all lines containing UTC to a new file. Then I got rid of all the stuff after the timezone by doing a find (using GREP to replace ' N[0-9].*' with nothing. Then I removed the line numbers and the space at the beginning of the file.
This is a sample of the result:
CALIFORNIA AVALON CATALINA (AVX)(KAVX) 6 NW UTC–8(–7DT)
BAKERSFIELD BAKERSFIELD MUNI (L45) 378 B TPA—1178(800) RWY 16–34: H4000X75 (ASPH) RWY 16: REIL. Road. Rgt tfc. CALIFORNIA 3 S UTC–8(–7DT)
BANNING MUNI (BNG)(KBNG) 2222 B TPA—3222(1000) RWY 08–26: H4955X100 (ASPH) 1 SE UTC–8(–7DT)
CALIFORNIA CONTINUED FROM PRECEDING PAGE AIRSPACE: CLASS C svc ctc APP CON svc 1400Z‡ Mon–0600Z‡ Fri and/or by NOTAM other times CLASS G. RADIO AIDS TO NAVIGATION: NOTAM FILE BAB. (L) TACAN Chan 23 BAB (108.6)
CALIFORNIA BIG BEAR CITY (L35) 0 W UTC–8(–7DT)
BISHOP CALIFORNIA (BIH)(KBIH) 2 E UTC–8(–7DT)
CALIFORNIA 91 BLYTHE (BLH)(KBLH) 6 W 400 B TPA—1200(800) RWY 08–26: H6543X150 (ASPH) MIRL UTC–8(–7DT)
BORREGO SPRINGS BORREGO VALLEY (L08) 3 E 520 B TPA—1520(1000) RWY 08–26: H5011X75 (ASPH) CALIFORNIA S–30, D–54, 2D–90 MIRL RWY 08: PAPI(P2L)—GA 3.0o TCH 63 ́. Road. Rgt tfc. UTC–8(–7DT)
CALIFORNIA 93 BRIDGEPORT BRYANT FLD (O57) 0 NE UTC–8(–7DT)
BURBANK BOB HOPE CALIFORNIA (BUR)(KBUR) 3 NW UTC–8(–7DT)
CALIFORNIA 95 BUTTONWILLOW ELK HILLS–BUTTONWILLOW (L62) 3 S UTC–8(–7DT)

It takes about two minutes to process the files. It’s not perfectly clean, but you can do some more GREPing to get rid of stuff.
Unfortunately, there is still a lot of junk in the files that will take some manual editing to fix. Probably not more than a couple of hours.

The best solution I was able to find is to use data from openflights.org. It has time zone information but its data about Daylight savings time is not very good.
I write in .NET and to address this problem I used NodeTime and TimeZoneConverter libraries.
I imported openflights.org data into my database. From this data, I used "Country", "City" and "TimeZone" fields.
Data from "TimeZone" field I used as a backup data - in case I won't be able to find TimeZoneInfo for a particular airport.
Following code retrieves current time zone offset for a particular location.
public static class TimeZoneHelper
{
    private const float Tolerance = 0.01f;

    public static float GetTimeZoneOffsetWithRegardsToDst(string countryName, string cityName, float timeZoneOffsetWithoutDst, DateTime currenTime)
    {
        try
        {
            var possibleLocations = TzdbDateTimeZoneSource
                .Default
                .ZoneLocations
                .Where(l => string.Equals(l.CountryName, countryName, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
                .ToList();

            if (!possibleLocations.Any())
            {
                return timeZoneOffsetWithoutDst;
            }

            if (possibleLocations.Count == 1)
            {
                var zone = DateTimeZoneProviders.Tzdb[possibleLocations[0].ZoneId];
                return GetTimeZoneOffsetWithDst(currenTime, zone);
            }

            var locationsWithSameTimeZoneOffsetWhenThereIsNoDst = possibleLocations
                .Where(l =>
                {
                    string windowsTimeZoneName = TZConvert.IanaToWindows(l.ZoneId);
                    var timeZoneInfo = TimeZoneInfo.FindSystemTimeZoneById(windowsTimeZoneName);
                    var baseUtcOffset = timeZoneInfo.BaseUtcOffset.TotalSeconds / NodaConstants.SecondsPerHour;

                    if (Math.Abs(baseUtcOffset - timeZoneOffsetWithoutDst) < Tolerance)
                    {
                        return true;
                    }

                    return false;
                })
                .ToList();

            if (locationsWithSameTimeZoneOffsetWhenThereIsNoDst.Any())
            {
                DateTimeZone zone;

                var locationsThatContainsNameOfCity = locationsWithSameTimeZoneOffsetWhenThereIsNoDst
                    .Where(l => l.ZoneId.ToUpperInvariant().Contains(cityName.ToUpperInvariant()))
                    .ToList();
                if (locationsThatContainsNameOfCity.Any())
                {
                    zone = DateTimeZoneProviders.Tzdb[locationsThatContainsNameOfCity[0].ZoneId];
                }
                else
                {
                    zone = DateTimeZoneProviders.Tzdb[locationsWithSameTimeZoneOffsetWhenThereIsNoDst[0].ZoneId];
                }

                return GetTimeZoneOffsetWithDst(currenTime, zone);
            }

            return timeZoneOffsetWithoutDst;
        }
        catch (Exception)
        {
            return timeZoneOffsetWithoutDst;
        }
    }

    private static float GetTimeZoneOffsetWithDst(DateTime currentTime, DateTimeZone zone)
    {
        var instant = Instant.FromDateTimeUtc(currentTime);
        var offset = zone.GetUtcOffset(instant);
        var offsetInSeconds = offset.Seconds;
        var timeZoneOffsetWithDst = offsetInSeconds / NodaConstants.SecondsPerHour;
        return timeZoneOffsetWithDst;
    }
}

NodeTime's TzdbZoneLocations object contains data about latitude and longitude of a particular object, so it is also possible to use latitude and longitude from openflights.org data to match airport to its time zone.

Here is an official FAA source.  I have found the information invaluable when researching airport features.
https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/
Once you select the airports you want to research.  Click submit.  The next page will show you four files to download.  Select Airport Facilities Data to download the CSV file (it is labeled a XLS file but it is in fact a CSV file).

I thought we were getting magnetic variation for a moment.  The file does not contain the information you requested but I thought I would keep the answer here so others can learn about the airport data page.

Yeah these downloads appear to match what's available in NASR. Sadly no time zone info ...

So, that CSV file doesn't seem to have a timezone column...

Not FAA-official, but there's a project called "Open Travel Data", which maintains a table of airport information, including a timezone column and a gmt_offset column:

Direct link to table
Repository page

Notes:

The table file is almost a CSV, except that the separator is a caret (^).
Remember that there is also the issue of daylight savings time! That always makes your life more difficult.

Timezone is always the same for each state, correct? It seems that all you need is the state. Probably that is why their is no official data with a time zone for each airport. From eNASR I just entered "*" for "Airport ID" and (after a while) got over 19,000 airports. They at least have a state code. I assume it would be relatively easy to save and parse that data.
Also have a look at OurAirports. Click on "Site Info" at the top then "Open data downloads". You can download a CSV with over 50,000 airports in the world with a state code for each one in the US.

This is a promising approach but unfortunately the premise is wrong: there are 14 states in the US with multiple timezones, e.g. FL (UTC-5 and UTC-6) or TX (-6/-7).

There are solutions but since I got a downvote I don't have confidence this is worth pursuing.

Until the 1980s, Alaska had four time zones. Many states that are wide East to West (and also some that aren't) have 2 time zones. And then there's Indiana, which is just special...

@reirab, did you see my comment? There are solutions that I could add but I don't understand why this is downvoted when wbeard52's response states explicitly that it can't work but it is not downvoted.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Could the Boeing 787-9 near vertical takeoff demonstration be performed by Airbus A350 aircraft?
I am an aviation enthusiast. A couple of months back I came to know about the difference between piloting Boeing and Airbus planes here.
What are the main differences piloting Boeing vs. Airbus aircraft?
The very first comparison says this:

Boeing trusts more the pilots: they can supersede the autopilots
  commands by exerting enough force on the controls
Airbus trusts more the autopilot: if the system is fully functional it
  will always have priority over the pilots (but they still have room
  for "non-standard" maneuvers, e.g. commanding bank angles beteween 33°
  and 60°)

Also another answer stated this:

Airbus aircraft limit pilots' capabilities in situations that require
  extreme action to be taken; the computer may prevent the pilot from
  pushing the plane past its safe ranges, which could be necessary in
  case of an emergency.
Boeing aircraft leave ultimate control mostly to the pilot.

Now relating the above points with the recent near vertical take off by Boeing 787-9 in the Paris air show 2015:

Is this near vertical take off is an example that "Boeing aircraft leave ultimate control mostly to the pilot"? If Airbus aircraft trust the autopilot more, would they allow this type of takeoff as it is done by pilot by pushing the engines to extreme? Also, is it some kind of mockery by Boeing to Airbus?
For those who haven't yet watched the video, here is the link:

The near vertical takeoff was actually at an angle of 55 degrees only. The video makes it look like vertical..

Who wants to bet that the plane was at (near) operational empty weight. I doubt the plane could do that if at max takeoff weight.

I do agree that its not 90 degrees, but can you mention the source that says it was 55 degrees?

CNN prompted Boeing to "share specifics about the takeoff and banking angles during the flight." A company spokeswoman told CNN "we unfortunately aren't sharing specifics about the profile such as bank angles at this time."
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/anatomy-boeing-787-dreamliner-vertical-takeoff-oliver

@RSB for the time, its my memory. I read it somewhere, that I don't remember..

Actual demonstration at Paris Air Show. The one included here was a rehearsal near Seattle. Looks great anyway.

The text you've quoted was pulled out of context. This "limiting in extreme situations" is made sounding like a bad thing. Read the bottom of that post. E.g. this limiting is what made miracle on the Hudson River easier for the pilot (he could just pull back the stick all the way and focus on looking for landing area - in Boeing he would have to pay attention to not pull back too hard). As everything in the world, some people find it good, other find it bad. As neither of us fly, it's not really our business to judge.

@RSB On this video at 1m20s, it can be seen that the actual angle is more near 50°.

No.
Firstly, as a comment noted, the takeoff was hardly "near vertical", the camera angle makes it look so. The takeoff angle in the video certainly is much steeper than a normal one, but Airbus aircraft are more than capable of doing the same - in fact an A350 did very much the same thing at the Paris Air Show.
The notion that an Airbus doesn't let the pilots have complete control is a little bit misleading. I'm not going to go into too much detail in this question, but what most people are referring to when they say that is the Alpha Protection system. This system kicks in when the aircraft is at extreme angles of attack. For example, if an aircraft is about to stall, it will not let the pilot pull the nose up. In any plausible situation the pilot would not want to raise the nose anyway, yet we have seen accidents such as Colgan 3407 where the pilot did exactly that (and, also AF447, however the system was disabled in that crash).
In summary, the Airbus system pretty much only prevents pilot actions that are dangerous (OK it is more complex than that, and the Boeing design has benefits too, but..). Back to your question, why does the Airbus system also allow such a steep takeoff? Because only the attitude was high, but the angle of attack was still within normal limits. These takeoffs are possible on lightly loaded aircraft with engines near full power.

I would like to add, that Boeing now, since 777, implements basically the same flight envelope protections that Airbus does. The only difference is that Boeing emulates mechanical link within the flight envelope while Airbus has automatic trim which makes things easier, but takes some feel of the aircraft away.

@TeeVeeTee: It was nowhere near vertical. CNN asked Boeing to share specifics about the takeoff and banking angles during the flight. The company preferred to keep aviation geeks guessing. A spokeswoman told CNN "we unfortunately aren't sharing specifics about the profile such as bank angles at this time." ... It's aviation eye candy to be sure, but an airline pilot warns that we shouldn't be too impressed. ... "Some of what you're seeing on takeoff is a trick of perspective," said 767 pilot Patrick Smith. "It looks like the takeoff is at a near vertical 90 degree angle — trust me it's not."

Many envelope protection (such as pitch angle) can be turned off (in Airbus by forcing the alternate law, e.g. by switching off some redundancy). We are speaking of maneuvre performed by pilots trained for air show knowing what can happen and achieving a great concentration level for few minutes. Thus turning off some protection to perfomr an impressive take off is acceptable (but I don't know if they did so).

Paris Air Show was quite funny for that: you could see pilots the A350 and on the 787 take off as early and as steeply as possible. I remember seeing the pilot of the 787 progressively take off several meters earlier (possibly something like 20m).
Also, this video was not at Paris Air Show but somewhere near Seattle as far as I know. The ground is nothing like Paris nor near Paris nor continental France. It was also posted to youtube the day after the first take off of the 787 before this year's Paris Air Show: no way they had managed to make a proper video in only a few hours.
It's also important to keep in mind the planes are really empty when they do that: even the A380 manages to fare very well for such things. Now, add 600 people with luggage for a total weight of at least 100kg each (60 tonnes total) and add kerosene too: it'll be entirely different.

Pretty sure that's not near Seattle.
The terrain looks nothing like Seattle (I see no mountains, and no ocean).  The visible runway is labeled 14L, which does not match PAE, BFI, RNT, or SEA.

This article says it is "a runway in Washington state".  More research shows that the pictures match Grant County International (MWH, also called Moses Lake), which is about 130 miles from Seattle.

Sorry, misremembered a bit and I have to say that fitting "near Seattle" was a good enough approximation for my brain: 10000 miles away from me, 130 miles off. :)

"The video was filmed above Moses Lake in Washington to offer the public “a first look at the demonstration Boeing is scheduled to fly” at the 2015 Paris Air Show, Boeing said in a press release on Thursday." - Source.

If 600 people with luggage adds 100kg, each person (with suitcase) weighs approx 167 grams. 600 people with luggage is more likely to add about 60,000 kg (i.e. 60 metric tonnes).

Yeah, I meant that people+luggage+clothes+seat would be roughly equal to 100kg. Don't remember which company had the issue of having way too many men in the plane compared to the number of women and had a plane which couldn't take off because of the weight then. IIRC they were planning on 70kg per individual, roughly like in elevators.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What's the Canadian equivalent of a Biennial Flight Review?
Is there an equivalent? Googling I didn't learn much.

verve you have to put a better description of what you are asking like more than 2 sentences. I am not trying to be mean, but somebody noted me today saying I had to put a better description into my questions because they didn't make sense and I am having trouble understanding the question.

@Ethan I have no idea how else to ask it. Just that one question...as said in the title..☺

@Ethan What's the Canadian name for a BFR?

That makes sense and now I understand your question I will do a little research

Can't seem to find a answer for you I only found definitons of the word have you tried Yahoo and Bing search engines

There is a requirement to complete a flight review every two years. I guess it's technically just a 'FR' but for all intents and purposes it is a BFR!


text:
What exactly are the functions of an aviation headset?
All I know from Google searching is that they provide hearing protection and ATC communication maybe? Do pilots have to attach them or are they wireless? Who can the pilot reach using them?  How much hearing protection does a pilot need? For instance, how does a pilot figure out how many decibels of protection is needed say for a Cessna 172? Must headsets always be worn? I'm interested in knowing all aspects of the uses of an aviation headset.

Aviation headsets are just like gaming headsets on a computer or console gaming system, except they are sturdier and much more expensive.
At the basic end of the spectrum, an aviation headset is just a big clamp style pair of around the ear headphones with a microphone.  The cable from the headset has 2 plugs (for airplanes) or one plug (for helicopters).  These two plug styles are equivalent electronically, with the helicopter cable having an extra conductor in order to include the microphone and headphones in the same plug. The two-plug variant has one plug for the headphones and one of the microphone.  These differ from gaming headsets in that the headphone plug is 0.25" (the kind a nice stereo receiver uses) and the microphone plug is 0.206".  This difference in sizes is to avoid mixing up which plug goes in which jack.
Aviation headsets fall into two broad categories: passive noise reduction and active noise reduction (ANR).  The passive noise reduction headsets rely on a good seal around the ear and a strong clamping force (e.g. David Clarks).  Active noise reduction are somewhat less "clampy" and provide less passive protection but make up for this with the active protection.  An ANR headset is money well spent, but these do top out at around \$850-\$1000 for the top models from Lightspeed and Bose respectively.  ANR headsets must be powered to work properly but all ANR headsets still function without power as passive noise reducing headsets.  Power for an ANR headset can come from a battery box or from aircraft power but not interchangeably.  Aircraft power requires panel installation of a plug specific to the headset brand (a single connector provides power, headphone and microphone connections).  In general, unless you happen to own an airplane and install the power plug, you should get the battery version of a headset.
The primary purpose of these headsets is to reduce the noise in the cockpit (they can be very loud) in order to avoid hearing loss (yes, it is that loud) and to facilitate clearer communication with ATC.
For quieter airplanes there are in-ear headsets that have more in common with earbuds than the bigger headsets.  Some of these are just earplugs wired for sound and some use molds of your ear to provide the seal.

The headset is connected to the airplanes audio panel.  Audio panels vary in complexity but their basic job is to provide an intercom for communication between occupants of the airplane and access to the com radio for communication with ATC.  The audio panel is also able to monitor (listen) the navigation radios certain types of beacons.  In transport aircraft the audio panel is also tied into the passenger address system and the flight attendant's phones in the cabin.
The headsets can be operated in a hot mic setup or the mic can be explicitly turned on and off.  The hot mic is the usual method and the audio panel provides a squelch control so you aren't broadcasting the cockpit noise when not talking.  The ATC transmissions are via a push-to-talk (PTT) switch.

Aviation headsets for the most part do not need to be approved to use in airplanes, but in some situations for US registered aircraft, the requirement of an approved headset can be mandated (some (all?) 121 carriers).  The FAA standards for approval are specified in TSO C-57a and C-58a.  You'll find many, but certainly not all, aviation headsets conform to these orders.  They define minimum performance characteristics of the electronics, speakers, microphones, etc that make up the headset.

How much hearing protection is needed depends greatly on the specific airplane in question.  Jets can be on the very loud end of the spectrum (EMB-145) or they can be quiet enough that even passive noise reduction is largely unnecessary.  For the noisy end of the spectrum peak wavelengths can be well in excess of 100 dB.  I can find reports of 130 db in some smaller airplanes and reports of 84 db in a 737 during cruise, but these numbers are all anecdotal in nature.  What is important to take from these is not the specific numbers but that they are high enough to cause hearing loss during prolonged exposure.  The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders defines 85 dB as the threshold for hearing damage from long or repeated exposure.
Passive headsets generally advertise noise reduction around 20 dB (23 dB for the venerable David Clarks) and some people will wear earplugs under a headset to further increase the passive noise reduction. A cursory look at ANR headsets reveal that they tend not to advertise their performance and instead specify maximum ambient noise levels for ANR to properly function (around 120-125 dB for Bose and Lightspeed headsets).  I can personally add an anecdote that both the Lightspeed Zulu and Bose X make dramatic changes in noise level (both of these headsets are now outdated and replaced by newer versions).
For most smaller airplanes you will wear the headset from startup to shutdown.  As you get into the large jets I have observed crews that wear minimal headsets during takeoff and landing, but not always during cruise.  These airplanes were quiet enough that they were not needed.  On turboprops and smaller jets that I have been in, headsets were worn throughout the flight.

On newer ANR headsets in particular you will find some extra features beyond just being a pair of headphones and a microphone.  These extras include a 3.5 mm auxiliary jack to connect external music and bluetooth to connect your phone or other device to the headset.  These typically come with circuitry to automatically mute or greatly decrease the volume of these inputs when ATC is transmitting.

Did they decide airplanes should have 2 separate plugs for safety reasons or something?  Isn't it cheaper to have one standard?

Can small planes power ANRs like a Cessna 172?  Or only jets?

@verve any plane equipped with the appropriate connector, small or large. Ive only seen them in smaller airplanes though. (The EMB-145 I flew had a port labelled ANR but it we never could find a compatible headset (the power plug is specific to the brand headset you have)

I use the Telex Airman 850's in my jet, and it is powered from the standard plugs (no extra plug or batteries required).  The passive noise protection probably wouldn't be compatible with a small aircraft though, but should work in just about any jet.  I think that this is a relatively "special" feature of this headset though.

How many decibels of protection does one need in a small or large jet?

Also, other reasons to use a headset:  1) You aren't bothering the passengers with ATC communication in an airplane where they could hear the overhead speakers and 2) It frees up the hand that is required to use a hand mic so that you can use both hands to fly (one hand on the yoke and one on the thrust levers, or one on the tiller and one on the thrust levers).  This is why the push to talk is on the yoke:  You don't have to let go of it to talk to ATC.

@verve It depends on the jet.  Some are (much) louder than others, and you can hear wind noise (very close to your ears) in all of them.  My standard answer is:  As much as you can afford.  Your hearing will thank you when you get older.  :-)

@Lnafziger I'm very careful about my hearing too.  How do you know if you're getting adequate protection?  Do pilots take a sound meter thing to measure in the cockpit?

@verve 2 plugs is just a very old standard, I think it started as military. There are adapters for single plug and 6pin. Two plug is not required but everyone wants to be compatible with everyone else and there is no big reason to change, the cost difference is minor. A single plug is more complicated to manufacture as it doesn't eliminate any electrical connections, just combines them. Also the helicopter headsets tend to come with a coiled cable and airplane prefer straight cable.

There are two common headset/audio-panel electrical standards, low impedance used by US military and high impedance common in US civilian, important if buying a used item.
Headsets marketed for jet aircraft tend to focus on reducing higher frequency noise typical of both turbines and wind noise. As compared to headsets marketed for general aviation where piston engine and props are the peak frequency.

@verve most general aviation pilots simply buy the maximum sound reduction. The more quite the easier it is to clearly hear others talking. One can also estimate based on personal judgment and the construction of the plane. An old military aircraft probably has a big powerful radial engine with no muffler and bare-metal cockpit with for air sealing, which will be very loud; while a more modern civilian aircraft is likely to have lower power or a turbocharger, a decent muffler and more sound absorbing upholstery. (Turbocharges also muffle exhaust noise.) But decibel meters can be used.

An "aviation" headset is really not much more than an expensive set of headphones with a microphone. They do not do any radio communication by themselves, but are plugged into the aircraft radio system. There are wireless aviation headsets, but many pilots will likely prefer wired ones because there are fewer things that can go wrong (for example, you need to keep the batteries in a wireless headset sufficiently charged for your flight). You would still need to plug part of a wireless headset (not the part you wear) into the aircraft radio system.
Headsets are not technically required equipment, but small aircraft cockpits are pretty noisy so hearing protection is a comfort issue for the pilot (and passengers). Depending on where the pilot intends to fly, the ability to communicate by radio may be required (for example, through controlled airspace near an airport).

As has been described by others, a typical airplane headset will have two plugs, one for the microphone and one for the audio.
There's no regulation requiring use of a headset or a minimum level of sound protection.  For airplane pilots, the universal use of headsets is a relatively new thing.  In the 1980s and earlier, it was common for small airplanes to have a hand-held microphone that could be used CB-style, and a speaker mounted somewhere in the cabin.  Most airplanes still have the (rarely used) speaker, but the hand-held microphones are becoming rare.
Interior cabin noise can be pretty loud.  Without a headset, the noise level is not quite rock-concert loud, but it's definitely loud - about like the inside of a factory.  With an ANR headset, it's comparable to riding in a car at freeway speeds.  With a passive headset, it's in between, but closer to the quiet end than the loud end.
There are several advantages of an ANR headset as well as a few disadvantages.  First, the maximum total noise reduction is greater.  Second, the noise reduction is weighted more heavily toward the lower frequencies.  It's possible to hear other sounds in the cabin more easily because the droning propeller noise is more strongly reduced.  Finally, an ANR headset is lighter and more comfortable because it does not need as much insulation and clamping pressure to block out the noise.  There are also some drawbacks.  ANR headsets are more expensive.  They do require batteries and these can die.  (Power supplied from the airplane is a possibility, but most airplanes don't have the capability).  A dead battery doesn't stop the headset from working, but the ANR advantages will be lost, and an ANR headset with a dead battery has less noise reduction than a passive headset.  Finally, sometimes ANR headsets will pick up interference, which might be electrical or the result of a physical factor, such as a vent blowing on them in exactly the wrong way, which can confuse the ANR and make some unpleasant noises for the wearer.
Nearly all small airplanes have connections for at least two headsets.  Most of them have a connection for every seat.  There is typically an intercom in the aircraft that allows all the passengers and pilot to talk to each other and hear ATC.  The pilot has a push-to-talk button on his control yoke that will enable transmitting on the aircraft's radio; anything spoken on the intercom is typically not transmitted.  Most intercoms have a volume control and an "isolate" feature that isolates the pilot and radios from the passengers, so the pilot is not distracted by them.  This is not a feature of the headsets, but of the electronics in the airplane.
While all aviation headsets serve the same basic functions, the more advanced ones have other features as well.  Common features include Bluetooth to connect to a cell phone or music player, volume control which may include left/right balance or treble/bass control, an aux input jack for connecting to a wired audio source or cell phone, and an auto-mute feature that will disable the music source when radio communication is being received.
You can take a look at an ANR headset owner's manual here:
http://www.lightspeedaviation.com/content/lightspeedaviation/file/ZuluUG_B3.pdf
EDIT to clarify some of the questions asked.
Most older planes have an audio panel installed, whether it was done when they were new or more recently as a refit.  Some still have the handheld mic but others have removed it since it isn't really needed.  If you were for some reason flying a plane that had no headset connection, you wouldn't be able to wear any hearing protection, as then you couldn't hear the radio or passengers.  Gliders, of course, are quiet, so with them it doesn't matter.
The lifetime of ANR batteries varies but I usually get about 20 flight hours on a set.
If an ANR headset picks up interference it is just an annoyance.  It's like having an insect buzzing in your ear.
Passengers don't need push-to-talk to talk to the pilot or each other.  The push-to-talk is only to transmit on the radio.  Back seat passengers don't usually have a radio transmit button and some planes only have one for the pilot.
Cell phones are prohibited in flight, but they can be used on the ground.  Other than calling someone to come pick you up from the airport, you often have to call ATC and notify them that you've landed.  If you're departing IFR from a non-towered airport, you'll also need to call ATC before you depart.  If you don't have a phone connection, you have to do all this with the engine off (otherwise the noise is too loud).

A lot of flight schools seem to have models made in 1972 so these must use CB? So, you would have to use passive protection?

How long do ANR batteries last if say, you use them 3 hours a day?

If an ANR picks up interference would that hurt your ears...the inference could be like 90 decibels or is it just soft annoyances? If it happens often wouldn't that distract one from safe piloting?

If a passenger wants to talk to the pilot in a small plane such as a Cessna do they have to push a button somewhere to get their voice to the pilot's ears?  Or every word out of their mouth registers in the microphone?

I thought the use of cellphones is forbidden in cockpits so how come you can connect to them?

Cell phones are only prohibited by company rules. The pilot is allowed to judge the safety of electronics and if they are interfering with the aircraft. Most audio panels allow the pilot to selectively mute the passengers, and some allow the pilot and copilot to be on separate radio frequencies.


text:
Taxiing with a crosswind
Let us say we have a right quartering headwind, we should “fly into the wind” so yoke to the right then that our right aileron will deflect up and left aileron down. How does this avoid the chances of weathervaning since our right main wheel will be more suspended on the ground? That should yaw our airplane to the right even more like in the concept of “torque effect” for left turning tendency (which results in yawing to the left since our left main wheel is suspended more on the ground).

This is part of basic training.  With a right quartering into the wind its ailerons into the crosswind, yoke pressure forward a bit.
Think of it as a headwind component and cross wind component.  The headwind component (increased by taxiing) will act on the ailerons, helping to "hold down" the upwind wingtip.
With a quartering tailwind while taxiing or at rest, the ailerons are reversed (upwind aileron down).
Keep in mind one also has differential braking (and rudder) help to control weathervaning.  Also, the "prop blast" will make the rudder more effective.
Once the plane is moving fast enough to be up on one wheel, rudder control will be effective.

the stronger the crosswind, the harder control becomes

That's why crosswind limits are applied for each aircraft.
Landing in a cross wind essentially involves the same procedures.

The primary purpose of the illustrated aileron corrections is not to prevent "weathervaning"-- rather it is to prevent the aircraft from tipping over so that the "downwind" wingtip contacts the ground, and also to allow the banked wing to generate a horizontal force component to oppose the horizontal sideforce generated by the wind blowing against the fuselage and other aircraft components, which would otherwise tend to create the "skipping" or "sliding" effect illustrated in the upper diagram, especially if the wing is actually banked in the wrong (downwind) direction as illustrated in the upper diagram.1
However, consider-- weathervaning is the biggest concern when we are decelerating, or taxiing at low power.  In these cases the engine is at low power so we don't have a strong propwash over the tail to improve the effectiveness of the rudder.  Say for simplicity the engine is generating zero thrust and zero propwash.   Is it not clear that the effect of the crosswind on the rear fuselage will generate a much stronger nose-to-right "weathervaning" torque if only the left main wheel is on the ground (and the left main wheel is therefore effectively acting as the "pivot point") than if only the right main wheel is on the ground (and the right main wheel is therefore effectively acting as the "pivot point")? If this is unclear, imagine a hypothetical extreme case where the main landing gear legs are attached all the way out at the wingtips-- now the geometry should be clear.
This effect is even more pronounced in a tailwheel aircraft, but it is also present in an aircraft with tricycle landing gear.  Yes, in the aircraft with tricycle gear, the gear is behind the center of gravity, but the center of lateral area of the aircraft still typically lies behind the main gear.
By the way, in a tailwheel aircraft with the tailwheel on the ground, we have the additional effect that because the aircraft sits nose-high, lowering an aileron creates much more drag than raising an aileron.  So the illustrated aileron input creates an additional yaw torque component in the "downwind" direction, opposing "weathervaning".  This yaw torque component created directly by the aileron deflection would be present even if the aircraft were exactly wings-level, with both main wheels pressing equally onto the ground.
In fact, even while running along on the main wheels in a tailwheel aircraft, in a high-speed taxi (or extended touch-and-go landing) with the tailwheel in the air, a right aileron input generates a strong left yaw torque and a left aileron input generates a strong right yaw torque.  An instructor showed this to me in his Luscombe, claiming that the ailerons (used in the "wrong-way" sense) were actually more effective than the rudder in steering the aircraft on the ground.  I don't know if this claim is actually true, but it was clear the ailerons were quite effective at generating a "wrong-way" yaw torque.  During this demonstration, the angle-of-attack of the wing was kept low enough that both main wheels stayed in contact with the ground, while the tailwheel stayed off the ground.
Footnotes:

While taxiing, we generally keep all the wheels on the ground (at least in a tricycle gear aircraft) and so the actual bank angle we'll achieve is small, due only to the compression of the tire and landing gear leg. In this case the primary purpose of the "upwind" aileron input is to prevent the "upwind" wheel from accidentally lifting into the air, but whatever slight bank angle we do achieve will serve the function noted here.  For actual take-off and landing, we'll spend some time with the "upwind" wheel on the ground and the "downwind" wheel off the ground, so the bank angle we'll achieve will be larger, and will serve the function noted here to a much greater extent than during taxiing.  Both during taxiing and during landing, anything we do to increase the ground contact pressure of the upwind wheel and decrease the ground contact pressure of the downwind wheel will help prevent weathervaning for the reasons given in this answer.  During takeoff, when the engine is delivering a lot of a thrust, this may no longer be true, as the question itself hints (by reference to "torque steering"), but during takeoff we generally have ample yaw control anyway, especially in a single-engine aircraft with a strong propwash over the tail.

From the illustration, I deduce that you’re talking about landing in a crosswind.  Aileron input will not control the tendency of the aircraft to weathervane.  What it is used for in crosswind landings is maintaining a flight track along the runway centerline i.e. you’re holding the airplane on center line using aileron input. Rudder input is then used to keep the longitudinal axis of the aircraft parallel to the runway. i.e. use rudder input to keep the nose pointed at the far end of the runway.  This rudder input will be independent i.e. uncoordinated with aileron input, as opposed to coordinated aileron and rudder inputs like those used in turning the airplane.
If done properly, the upwind main landing gear will make contact with the runway first. Once that happens, the pilot allows the downwind main landing gear to touchdown on the runway by relaxing aileron pressure somewhat.  Again, the same control inputs i.e. aileron input to track centerline and rudder to keep the a/c aligned with centerline are used until the nosewheel touches down a the airplane has significantly slowed. At this point full aileron deflection into the wind will be used and directional control usthe airplane has significantly slowed. At this point full aileron deflection into the wind will be used and rudder will be used for directional control in taxi.
As for torque effects during touchdown, if done properly, a crosswind landing should produce minimal effect yawing like that.  Any tendency of the airplane to yaw should be immediately corrected with rudder input to keep the nose pointed at the far end of the runway.  Poorly controlled crosswind landing with a hard touchdown often will cause the airplane to veer off in the upwind direction, particularly if the pilot relaxes control pressures at the instant of touchdown.  Crosswind landings require a diligent pilot to continuously fly the airplane until it is slowed to taxi speeds.
During taxi, the idea in control positioning is not to use ailerons to prevent weathervaning, but to prevent a gust or wind from picking up the upwind wing and tossing the airplane over.  Any kind of minor loads on the landing gear from this are insignificant next to the risks associated with such an event.  This is particularly necessary with seaplane operations due to a floatplane’s CG located so high relative to the water surface.

Title says they are referring to taxiing.

Add additional comments about taxiing


text:
What type of plane is this?
Looks like a biplane with an inline engine.
Time frame is probably pre December 1941.
As a second question: Does anyone know what the shield shaped emblem would be, i.e., what squadron, etc.?

welcome to aviation.SE. could you tell us which country is the photo from?

Inline engine?  It could be a V24 :)

What is the source for the photo?

Part 1
I submit the Curtiss P-1 Hawk, A US Army Air Corp Pursuit aircraft that entered service in 1923.
See Wiki: Curtiss P-1 Hawk
Similar angle of Museum example
My evidence is the following:

Similar engine cover shape and air inlet design
Similar parasol wing layout

Part 2.
I do not have any suggestion for the origin of the emblem, other than to look for images of the markings of the various units post 1923, The Wiki lists squadrons that received the P-1.


text:
Why do children need to leave the plane during a refueling operation?
On a flight at the end of the 90s,  the plane --  most likely a 747 -- made a stopover at an airport to refuel.
In my recollection, during the refueling process all of the children needed to leave
   the plane. What is the reason for this procedure?

related: Under what conditions are passengers required to take precautionary measures during refueling?

Thank you very much, I also found this related Question. But I was wondering why children, are they more sensitive to fuel gas? And strangely in that related Question the people could stay on board but with open doors?

Different airliners different operations; also making the (potential) evacuation more expedient by removing the most troublesome factor (bored and unruly kids) is a logical step.

@ratchetfreak: except you can't send children off unguarded, so their adult companions have to leave too and then it just seems to be easier to send off everybody.

@Jan Hudec: I expierenced it that 1 or 2 Stewardesses did go out with the Children.

So you are flying from point A to point B, and stop at some random airport on the way. Then you let your children get off the airplane with an unknown lady? I don't get it!

it's also not always consistent. 2 years ago flying from Amsterdam to Jakarta with a fuel stop in Dubai everyone was told to get off during refueling. Coming back a month later, same airline, same aircraft type, they didn't deplane anyone during refueling. Might have been because of the 4 hour delay we were running on the return trip...

There are special requirements when refueling with pax onboard. Perhaps the first time they couldn't meet the safety criteria so they had to disembark

Just as a historical note, I retired in 1999 having flown for two commuters and two 747 carriers. None of those carriers required passengers, adults or children, to disembark during refueling. This included the rare occasions when when over-the-wing refueling was used, which could arguably be seen as allowing the escape of more fuel fumes.

@Farhan When I was a kid, my parents would leave me with the stewardess for my flights to visit my grandparents, so yeah, left me with some unknown lady. Times have changed, but I'd still feel comfortable with it today in most places. /totally off topic discussion...

You can find interesting lectures about the refueling in a Airbus Flight Operation Briefing Note or in the CAP 748.
When they have children leave the plane, it is probably a company thing! There are no such rules that all passengers have to deboard a plane during refuel (with JetA and similar). But, as you can see in the Airbus FOPN, there are some requirements that need to be met. Each manufacturer as well as each company probably has its on way of interpreting  of the rules and regulations issued by the CAP and the FAA.
Summing up, it is basically by the pilots and therefore the company's discretion what to do with the passengers (or children) on board during refueling as long as saftey requirements are met!

Sounds like nothing but an opportunity to sell some overpriced snacks to kids running around the terminal!


text:
What are the advantages/disadvantages of diesel/Jet A-1 piston engine?
Some GA aircraft, notably the DA40/DA42, are equipped with piston engines that use Jet A-1 and/or automotive-grade diesel instead of aviation gas (avgas). An example of such engine is the Austro Engine AE300:

What are the advantages/disadvantages of these engines and why are they not more common?

Advantages

Compression-ignition engines have higher compression ratio which leads to being more efficient. So the aircraft range improves and on longer flights payload capacity may improve as well. Fuel consumption is usually about 30% lower.
The higher efficiency combined with the fact that Jet A-1 fuel is cheaper mean they have lower operating cost. Especially since in Europe the leaded avgas is heavily taxed to discourage it's use for environmental concerns.
They should be a bit more reliable. A diesel engine needs high pressure fuel pump, but apparently there are less problems with those than there are with spark-plugs.
They are somewhat easier to operate, since they don't have separate throttle and mixture controls.
They don't suffer the problems associated with incorrect settings of those controls, namely knocking/detonation and pre-ignition.
Turbo-charging them does not carry the risk of pre-ignition and most of them are turbo-charged, so the performance does not decline as fast with density altitude.
There is lower risk of fire since jet/diesel fuel is less flammable (has higher ignition temperature).
Jet A-1 has much wider availability, especially in the third world, so it's easier to plan for fuel stops on a flight through say, Latin America or Africa

Disadvantages

They are heavier for the same power, because they need to be made from stronger material due to the higher compression ratio and because they need to have larger cylinder volume because of lower maximal rpm. On longer flights the reduction in fuel weight often makes up for the heavier engine.
Turbo-charging comes with specific operating procedures unfamiliar to those used to normally aspirated engines and a slight lag in thrust lever (it's not a throttle) response.
As others mentioned, small airports may not have jet fuel yet. This is probably better in Europe where the pressure to phase out 100LL avgas is stronger. Some engines also use automobile diesel fuel or even either jet or diesel fuel as diesel engines are less picky about what they burn.

Technically, it's Jet A-1 that has much wider availability; Jet A itself is, outside the United States, only available at a few major airports in Canada and Europe.

@Sean, true—and the question says A-1, so the answer should as well (updated).

A big part of that "greater efficiency" is that fuel is measured by volume.  X volume of diesel-family fuels have about 15% more energy than X volume of gasoline-family fuels, partly because it has more mass.   So this is an artifact of faulty measurements.

@Harper, there is indeed some difference in energy density, but not nearly as much as the difference in consumption.

Modern aero-diesel engines are far more technically advanced than the majority of avgas powered engines as they are very new designs. Most avgas engines are normally aspirated, most of the time carbureted, and have manually controlled fuel to air mixtures, which is ancient engine technology. Aero-diesels have turbochargers, electronic fuel-injection, and computer-controlled mixture which gives them better performance and efficiency. Prop pitch is also usually computer-controlled, giving the pilot a single-lever control.
So there are no real disadvantages to the engines themselves, the disadvantages are more around the logistics and start-up costs. There are few mechanics who can work on them, and few aircraft with STCs which allow them to be retrofitted, so if you want one chances are you can't have one. To retrofit (if permitted) requires substantial modifications to fuel tanks, fuel delivery systems, electrical systems, and more, so it's not a cheap option.

weight can be a notable disadvantage of some "aero-diesel" designs (though I understand this has improved quite a bit, with a least one engine claiming a weight savings over its avgas counterpart)

This is true, diesel engines have higher pressures than gasoline engines, therefore are made from steel rather than aluminum. Many aero-diesels started life as automobile engine blocks but newer designs have been designed from the start for aircraft use and have been able to shave of weight.

@voretaq7: The linked engine itself is very slightly heavier than it's gasoline counterpart. The weight savings come from the fact that you have to carry less fuel.

In a way it is silly, aero-diesels have advantages, but many of them come from the fact that Jet-A1 is cheaper in many locations. If we built an engine around aviation-grade gasoline with the same technology we could probably do away with the lead and have as good or better performance than aero-diesels, but they'd still be more expensive to operate because of taxes.

Advantage: AvGas is heavily taxed in Europe. This is primarily an envy tax, because it brings in less than the cost of its administration, but the non-flying majority feels good by "punishing the millionaires who waste their money on flying". AvGas costs currently about 2.6 - 3 € per liter in Germany, for example.
Jet fuel cannot be taxed in the same way because arbitrage is too easy. Airlines would simply stop refueling within Europe. At prices of around 1 € at large airports the difference is substantial. With a DA-40 you might not get the same price that airlines get, but a sizable difference remains.
Disadvantage: At pure GA airports, you will have a hard time to get Jet fuel at all. There are very few piston engines which can use Jet A-1 and are rated for aviation. Car engines cannot be used without heavy modifications, because they are not designed for continuous operation at 60% or 70% of their maximum performance. Due to the higher internal pressure, the engines tend to be heavier and produce more vibrations. However, since the specific fuel consumption of a Diesel engine is lower, the total system mass for ranges in excess of 1000 km should be lower.
The GA market is simply too small to support the design of new engines. We have to use what was created half a century ago. It's a shame, but it has been shown several times in the last two decades - there were a number of attempts to create GA diesel engines, with very little to show.
In the 1930's Junkers made a range of very interesting Diesel piston engines (see here) which powered a range of aircraft designed for very long ranges. They were used for transatlantic mail service (see here and here for examples).

Energy content of Jet fuel is only higher per volume. Per mass it is lower. However diesel engines have significantly better thermodynamic efficiency due to the much higher compression ratio.

@Jan Hudec: Thanks for pointing this out, the density of Jet-A1 is between 0.78 and 0.84 kg/l and that of AvGas 0.69 - 0.76 kg/l. If you are space limited, switching to a Diesel helps a lot; if you are mass limited, less so. But still, the SFC is 250 g/KWh for AvGas and 200 g/KWh for Diesel engines. Using mean values for the density, this translates into 0.246 l/kWh for Diesels and 0.345 l/kWh for AvGas engines.

I'm pretty sure the AvGas tax is intended as an environmental tax because of the lead, not a regressive tax or "envy tax" as you put it.

@raptortech97: At the time of the introduction the dangers of lead were not well known. Mind you, all car gas was still leaded. No, the politicians made it quite clear what the target was: Not lead, but "rich" people. The world has changed quite a bit since then.

@PeterKämpf -- yeah, that tax is pretty pointless any longer -- the major AvGas burners are light trainers and helos I suspect, not millionaires on business trips!

So this "rich man's tax" is mostly being paid by students. Isn't bureaucracy marvelous.

Actually, a lot of car engines can burn jet fuel with no modifications at all.  Considerable numbers of cars use Diesel engines, which can generally burn jet fuel without any difficulty.

Diesel engines in GA uses radiator cooling and thus heats the cabin with a water heat exchanger, inherently safer than taking heat directly off the exhaust manifold/pipe.


text:
Why did upward turning propellers in the F-82 Twin Mustang cause a loss of lift in the center wing section?
In the Wikipedia article on the F-82 Twin Mustang it says:

After a month of work North American engineers finally discovered that rotating the propellers to meet in the center on their upward turn created sufficient drag to cancel out all lift from the center wing section, one quarter of the aircraft's total wing surface area. The engines and propellers were then exchanged, with their rotation meeting on the downward turn, and the problem was fully solved"

Why did this direction of propeller turn cause this problem?

Image source: http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/photo_galleries/aaf_wwii_vol_vi/Captions/078_Experimental.htm
(This image or file is a work of a U.S. Air Force Airman or employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image or file is in the public domain.)

according to that article, an outward-spinning engine configuration is better in theory.  i don't see how this would be.  in a single-engine scenario, wouldn't the working engine torque push the non-working engine side down?  or am i thinking about that wrong?

@erich, I see your point, to get an answer you should probably make this a question with a proper quote.

back in post-WWII they weren't that concerned with engine out scenarios or FAA's regulations about them

@Maverick283 the more i research this, the more i see the same comments.  i'm beginning to think someone got history wrong, and everyone else is just copying it.

Does anyone have any data on a possible redesign on the center wing part? Or did they simple mirror a part of the root wing? Perhaps the result of the two propellors combined generated in increases of $c_l$ that was too far away from the value of $c_l$ design for that region.

@erich I posted this question here, hope you don't mind that I quoted your comment, if so let me know...

I'm not sure the history provided in the Wikipedia article is entirely accurate, for the fact that both engines in an outward spinning, two-prop counter-rotating configuration are critical.  This is confirmed in the introduction of this book, though it seems to be written well after the fact and without reference to the oft-quoted story of not getting enough lift on its maiden run:

Turning the propellers toward the fuselage meant much better control during single-engine operation.

Likewise, the republished F-82 Operator's Manual boasts, "Single-engine control characteristics of this airplane are exceptionally good."  Again (but also as expected), no mention of any trial and error in the design phase.
And the more I researched the F-82's design, I found various and unsourced information.  Many sites repeated the initial flight test story, while another said the first attempt's failure was attributed to weight.
My guess is that initial designs of the F-82 simply borrowed from the slightly earlier P-38's final configuration, where the outward-spinning counter-rotating propellers reduced downwash on the horizontal stabilizer and made for a more stable gunnery platform.
As for figuring out the lift cancellation in the F-82's center wing section, it is probably helpful to explain first what effect a single propeller has on the wing behind it.
Generally speaking, a spinning propeller creates a downstream vortex in the same direction as the propeller is rotating.  The area of wing behind the upswing of a propeller blade experiences a higher angle of attack to the resultant airflow, resulting in increased lift and drag across that section of the wing.

Image source: Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand
Likewise, the opposite occurs on the downswing side, resulting in a net increase in lift and net decrease in drag behind the engine as a whole.  This single-engine airflow model is generally true for multiple-engine models with all propellers spinning in the same direction:

The interaction of the slipstream with the wing produces an increase in overall lift coefficient. This net increase is the result of a local increase in local lift coefficient $C_L$ for the part of the wing located in the slipstream with up-rotation while the downrotation induces a local decrease in $C_L$. The local drag coefficient $C_d$ is locally increased in the uprotation part and decreased over the down-rotation section.  The net result is generally a reduction of drag on the wing.

So the F-82 seems to be an enigma in this regard.  Theoretically, an outward rotation should have increased lift on the center section, not reduced it.  So why didn't it?  Perhaps there was too much interaction between the two propeller wakes.  Again, consider the P-38 Lightning.  Though they both have twin counter-rotating engines and two tail booms connected by a shared horizontal stabilizer, the P-38 has a big center fuselage for the pilot sitting right between the two engines, effectively isolating the individual propeller slipstreams.
A study on the "Down Between Engines" (DBE) configuration of the Airbus A400M noted "[strong] interact[ion]" of its counter-rotating engines' slipstreams

especially [in] the part of the wing located between both engines and results in a local decrease in lift coefficient that is not entirely offset by the local increase on those parts of the wings that experience upward motion (emphasis mine)

resulting in both decreased lift and increased drag in the wing section between the engines.
Note that DBE (i.e. inward-spinning propellers) was the fix for the F-82's lift woes; that the inter-engine wing region still experiences decreased lift and increased drag in the more preferable counter-rotating configuration underscores the notion that interaction of propeller slipstreams is not desirable.  My guess is that this switch removed just enough of the adverse lift conditions so as to enable the aircraft to get airborne.  It would be interesting to find out if anyone modified an F-82 to remove the counter-rotating aspect.

UPDATE:
At long last, I have found what appears to be the most credible source for the Wikipedia article, a 2013 issue of Warbirds magazine.

The first flight was (at least somewhat) attributed to being overweight.  A second attempt on 16 June 1945 went unexpectedly airborne for over an hour after taking off with a limited fuel load.
The interaction between the propellers created an early stall condition forward of the wing when combined with the normal upward flow, causing the lift over the center wing to predictably suffer.  According to NAA aerodynamicist Ed Horkey:

"What was happening was that we had propellers rotating in different directions on the left and right engines.  For some reason, which I can't remember, we started with the blades moving upward in front of the center section.  What this does, particularly at high angles of attack, is to create upward flow approaching the leading edge of the center section of the wing.  You also have normal upflow ahead of the wing.  The two upflows would add together to create an early stall.  The center section represented a large portion of the wing's area.  What was happening was that we were stalling out early and just not getting enough lift. ... We changed the rotations to go down the middle and we had the problem solved."

So to recap-- in P-38 originally both props spun inwards at the top, but this made a buffet on the horizontal tail, so they reversed it to both props spinning outwards at the the top-- essentially making EACH engine a "critical engine".  With the P-82 they started with both props spinning inwards at the top, and ran into a stall issue with the wing center section, so they reversed them, making NEITHER engine a "critical engine". I wonder why they started with it the other way-- just based on the P-38 experience? Or to try to maximize upwash and lift at the center section? (Too well it seems)

The example given of the Cessna's propwash doesn't include the resultant left wing drop during stall because of the angle of attack along the width of the span being its highest at the left wing root, therefore that is where the stall starts.
The P-38 and XP-82 had outboard turning props to make sure the stalls, particularly power-on stalls, started inboard minimizing lateral control issues.
The idea was to maximize controllability during combat maneuvering.  Inboard turning props improve engine out performance but at the cost of reduced lateral stability at high power settings and high angles of attack due to outboard stall initiation.
What does that have to do with the XP-82 having trouble taking off?  Well, it flew like that, actually, and there are quite a few photos of it flying with those outboard turning props.
The problem was that in a three point attitude on the ground (the wing's stall angle) the wing center section was blanking the airflow to the stabilizer/elevator.  In order to take off one had to tap the brakes at speed to lift the stab up into clear airflow for elevator control and to let the aircraft accelerate slightly beyond max AoA stall speed before going airborne.  A tail wheel 262 prototype sort of thing.  Not a tough technique for test pilots but not something you want the regular pilots to have to do.
The ideal fix is to raise the stabilizer, the quick and easy fix is to reverse the props improving the three point attitude airflow to the stab.


text:
Why an external RAT on this early propeller plane at Charlotte?
At the Charlotte airport, I caught a glimpse of the Bellanca 14-9L with State Airlines livery they have on display. They call the Bellanca the first plane with retractable landing gear but that's not what struck my attention:

There is a ram air turbine generator visible  and permanently located between the landing gear (circled). I only know of RATs as providing emergency power for airliners -- and they are only deployed (pushed outside) when they are needed. The other use for them is apparently on cropdusters.
Why did this airplane need a RAT permanently installed? Wouldn't it be much more power efficient and aerodynamic to provide DC/AC power through a magneto or alternator on the engine?
Late note: I looked at pictures of other Bellanca 14-9L and they don't show a RAT. Perhaps this means that this plane was not a passenger craft (as its "State Airlines" livery indicates) but was in real life a cropduster?
(Photo by author. Released cc by-sa)

Here's a blogger who notes the RAT but doesn't expound: https://travelforaircraft.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/charlotte-douglas-write/

Since several sources seem to hint that the gear was a bit of work to actuate manually could it have been a retrofitted hydraulic rat?

It could be, although the photos of other 14-9Ls that I see on other websites don't have visible RATs.

Many older aircraft could be equipped with an optional external air driven generator, including, for example, the Luscombe 8A. Some air driven generator models were granted a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) allowing them to be added to specific aircraft, such as the venerable J-3 Cub. The reason these were used is that, as you surmise, the engine is not equipped with any mechanism to drive an alternator or generator, i.e., there is no pulley, no gear mechanism, etc. Examples of those engines, still in use today, are the A-65, A-75 and original C-85. Newer designs of air driven generators are still available today, such as the BPE14 TURBO STAND-BY ALTERNATOR. The disadvantages include increased drag and exposure to ground obstacles, debris and of course, birds and bugs!